coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Novyi Urengoy, a town in the Tyumen Region.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  In 1998 the applicant sued Mr T. for damages. On 26 November 2001 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Tomsk held for the applicant. Mr T. was absent from this hearing because he did not live at the address to which the summons had been mailed.
7.  On 10 December 2001 the applicant collected the writ of enforcement from the court and submitted it to bailiffs for enforcement.
8.  On 13 February 2003 the bailiffs returned the writ to the applicant, because it contained wrong information on Mr T.’s identity. The applicant asked the court to rectify Mr T.’s identity, and on 23 December 2003 the court issued a new writ of enforcement.
9.  On 30 December 2003 the bailiffs instituted enforcement proceedings and on 26 January 2004 they attached Mr T.’s at in Tomsk.
10.  On 17 September 2004 the bailiffs transferred the enforcement ﬁle to the service having territorial competence over Mr T.’s residence.
11.  On 9 September 2004 the District Court restored for Mr T. the time-limit for supervisory review of the judgment. On 20 October 2004 the Tomsk Regional Court stayed the enforcement pending the supervisory review.
12.  On 9 March 2005 the Presidium of the Tomsk Regional Court granted Mr T.’s application for supervisory review, quashed the judgment, and remitted it for a rehearing. The Presidium found that the District Court had gone beyond the applicant’s claims by adjusting the award for ination, and had failed to notify Mr T. of the proceedings.
13.  On 23 June 2005 the District Court adjourned the proceedings for the applicant’s persistent failure to appear.
5.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Grigoreşti.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  In 1996 the applicant received from the local authority in the village of Alexandreni a plot of land which she still uses. She was not, however, given title to the land, so in December 2003 she requested the local authority to transfer title to her.
8.  On 20 February 2004 her request was turned down. She then brought court proceedings for the annulment of that decision and an order requiring the local authority to grant her title to the land. She explained that she continued to use it but needed a document proving her ownership.
9.  On 9 June 2004 the Sîngerei District Court granted her request and ordered the local authority to transfer title to her. No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final and enforceable 15 days later.
10.  The applicant obtained a warrant of execution which she lodged with the Decisions Enforcement Department of the Ministry of Justice (“the Department”) on 19 July 2004. On 26 July 2004 the Department requested the local authority to comply with the warrant.
11.  According to documents submitted by the Government, on 27 July 2004 the local authority annulled its decision of 20 February 2004 and granted the applicant title to the land. According to the applicant, she was not informed of that decision.
12.  On 16 February 2005 the applicant’s representative asked for the Department’s assistance in enforcing the judgment of 9 June 2004.
13.  In a letter to the applicant dated 21 March 2005, the Department informed her that on 10 January 2005 the warrant of execution had been served on the Alexandreni local authority, but that the authority had still not complied with the judgment. The Department also informed the applicant that it was preparing documents with a view to inviting the court to penalise those responsible for the failure to comply with the judgment.
14.  On 20 September 2005 the applicant’s representative again asked for the Department’s assistance in enforcing the judgment of 9 June 2004. It is unclear whether he received any answer.
15.  On 14 December 2005 the Sîngerei branch of the Bălţi Territorial Cadastral Office issued the applicant with the cadastral plan of the land. On 26 December 2005 the applicant paid for the registration of her title at the Territorial Cadastral Office in Bălţi.
16.  Following a request on 22 May 2006, the applicant obtained registration of her title to the land on 30 May 2006.
17.  On 15 February 2007 the Department asked the Sîngerei Cadastre Office for information about the date and number of the registration of the applicant’s title to the land.
4.  The applicant lives in Salgótarján.
5.  On 29 September 1999 the applicant’s employer brought an action against him, alleging a deficient inventory.
6.  On 15 May 2001 the Salgótarján Labour Court found for the plaintiff, after having held several hearings.
7.  On 25 October 2001 the Nógrád County Regional Court upheld this decision. On 27 November 2002 the Supreme Court quashed these judgments and remitted the case to the Labour Court.
8.  In the resumed proceedings, on 27 January 2005 the Labour Court again found for the plaintiff, after having held several hearings and obtained the opinions of experts.
9.  On 26 May 2005 the Regional Court amended this decision.
10.  On 15 September 2005 the applicant’s petition for review reached the Supreme Court. Although section 273(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes a 60-day time-limit for the preliminary examination of a petition, it only took place on 12 April 2006. On that date a single judge decided, in a 6-page decision which was reasoned in detail, that the applicant’s petition did not disclose a breach of the relevant law, in particular the rules concerning the interpretation of expert opinions. Although the decision was given in a procedure nominally as to the admissibility of the petition, in fact it dealt with the merits of the applicant’s case. The Supreme Court’s order was served on him on 29 May 2006.
11.  The applicant filed a complaint alleging that, because of the non-observance of the 60-day time-limit, the single judge had no longer been entitled to reject his petition and a hearing should have been held.
12.  On 6 July 2006 the Head of the Supreme Court’s Labour-Law Collegium rejected the applicant’s complaint. She explained that the delay was due to the Supreme Court’s backlog of cases and that section 273(4) could not be interpreted to the effect that the delay had entailed an obligation on the Supreme Court’s part to hold a hearing.
4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Szomód.
5.  In the context of a real estate dispute, on 13 August 1993 the applicant brought an action claiming partial ownership of a house.
6.  After having held several hearings and obtained the opinions of two experts, on 27 August 1998 the applicant was granted one fifth of the property in question.
7.  On appeal, on 17 March 1999 the Komárom-Esztergom County Regional Court quashed this decision.
8.  In the resumed proceedings, the Tata District Court held several hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert. On 12 June 2003 it gave judgment, granting the applicant partial ownership. Simultaneously, it dissolved the common ownership thus created, gave the part allocated to the applicant to the respondent, and ordered the latter to compensate the former.
9.  On appeal, on 4 February 2004 the Regional Court amended this decision and gave a final judgment.
10.  The applicant filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.
11.  On 31 January 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the petition in preliminary proceedings. In a reasoned decision, it held that the applicant’s petition was inadmissible because it did not disclose a breach of the relevant law, in particular the rules concerning the termination of common ownership. The Supreme Court’s order was served on him on 17 February 2005.
4.  The applicants were born in 1943 and 1944 respectively and live in Budapest.
5.  On 3 August 1992 the applicants brought an action challenging an administrative decision expropriating their land. After two hearings, on 10 May 1993 the case was suspended pending an underlying dispute concerning the situation in the land register.
6.  On 29 August 2002 the case was transferred to the Pest County Regional Court as this was the competent court to deal with the case.
7.  The proceedings concerning the land register were terminated by the Érd District Land Registry on 26 March 2004. The applicants did not appeal to the Pest County Land Registry.
8.  After two further hearings, on 15 February 2005 the Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ action. The court held that the authorities involved in the expropriation had proceeded in compliance with the law.
9.  On 2 November 2005 the Budapest Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeal. This decision was served on their lawyer on 27 December 2005.
10.  On 16 May 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ petition for review as inadmissible, since it did not meet the procedural requirements.
4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Budapest.
5.  In 1989 the applicant bought a flat from a real estate investment bank. On 14 July 1993 he brought various warranty claims against the successor of the seller.
6.  After having held several hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert, the Pest Central District Court found in part for the applicant on 19 September 2002.
7.  On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court held a hearing on 28 March 2003. It upheld the first-instance decision on 11 July 2003.
8.  On 18 March 2004 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s petition for review, since it held that the motion was incompatible ratione materiae with the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Gaziantep.
5.  The Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant (plot no. 624) in the Aşağıçardak village, in Nizip, in order to build the Birecik dam.
6.  On 8 February 1999 the applicant brought an action before the Nizip Civil Court of First Instance for additional compensation.
7.  On 30 December 1999 the Nizip Civil Court of First Instance awarded the applicant additional compensation of 5,286,375,000 Turkish liras (TRL)[1] plus interest at the statutory rate, running from 5 March 1999.
8.  On 19 June 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
9.  On 4 November 2002 and 23 May 2007 the administration paid the applicant TRL 15,853,159,343[2] and 7,799.64 new Turkish liras (TRY)[3] respectively in additional compensation, together with interest.
5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Istanbul.
6.  On 18 November 1997 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways (hereinafter “the Directorate”) expropriated 4,309 square metres of the applicant’s land in Tunceli. The expropriation decision was communicated to the applicant on 16 August 2000. According to the domestic procedure, the applicant had thirty days, which began the day after the decision was communicated to him, to ask for an increase in the amount of compensation.
7.  On 1 September 2000 a certain Mr Sezai Yıldız, who had been authorised by the applicant to appoint a lawyer for him, had a power of attorney drawn up at a notary public, appointing Mrs Fatma Kalsen Demirdaş as legal counsel to represent the applicant.
8.  On 19 September 2000 the applicant, with the assistance of his lawyer Mrs Demirdaş, brought an action before the Tunceli Civil Court (hereinafter the “Tunceli Court”), seeking increased compensation. Mrs Demirdaş requested the court to accept the case despite the expiry of the statutory time-limit on 17 September 2000, as she had had health problems preventing her lodging the case earlier.
9.  On 9 November 2000 the Tunceli Court asked the Forensic Medicine Institute in Ankara to clarify whether Mrs Demirdaş had had health problems at the relevant time and whether those problems had been of a nature to render it impossible for her to come to the court house and lodge the applicant’s case within the statutory time-limit.
10.  On 22 May 2001 the Erzurum branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute forwarded to the Tunceli Court a number of medical reports, confirming that Mrs Demirtaş had been ill between 23 August 2000 and 17 September 2000 and had thus been unable to lodge the case within the statutory time-limit.
11.  The Tunceli Court accepted the medical report and began examining the merits of the case. In the course of the proceedings it had regard to the zone plan, the expropriation documentation, two principal and two additional expert reports, and awarded the applicant additional compensation on 31 May 2001. The Directorate appealed.
12.  On 3 March 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision, quoting the applicant’s name, instead of that of his representative, as the person who had been ill. The Court of Cassation stated that the applicant had given a power of attorney to Fatma Kalsen Demirdaş so that, even if he had been ill, Mrs Kalsen Demirdaş could have lodged the claim on his behalf within the statutory time-limit. The Court of Cassation consequently held that the case had been time-barred on 17 September 2000.
13.  In an application for rectification Mrs Demirdaş argued that it was she who had been ill, not her client. The Court of Cassation had therefore made a factual error which should be rectified.
14.  On 12 May 2003, the Court of Cassation held that “amending the factual error would not affect the outcome”, and dismissed the rectification request.
15.  On 4 July 2003 the Tunceli Court concurred with the Court of Cassation’s decision and dismissed the case. On 13 November 2003 the Court of Cassation upheld the final ruling.
4.  The applicants were born in 1928 and 1933 respectively and live in Bihać.
5.  Prior to the dissolution of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“the SFRY”) the applicants deposited foreign currency in their bank accounts at the Privredna banka Sarajevo Glavna filijala Bihać. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as in other successor States of the former SFRY, such savings are commonly referred to as “old” foreign-currency savings (for the relevant background information see Jeličić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, ECHR 2005-...).
6.  Following several unsuccessful attempts to withdraw their funds, the applicants initiated court proceedings seeking the recovery of their entire “old” foreign-currency savings and accrued interest.
7.  By a decision of the Bihać Municipal Court of 3 December 1993, the Privredna banka Sarajevo Glavna filijala Bihać was ordered to pay the applicants 54,469.42 German marks (DEM), 19,257.25 Swiss francs, 81.12 French francs, 60,120.49 Austrian shillings, 185.61 Canadian dollars, 231.86 US dollars, 163.39 Dutch guilders and 22,217.60 Italian liras, default interest on the above amounts at the rate applicable to overnight deposits from private individuals from 1 January 1992 and legal costs in the amount of DEM 1,940. The judgment entered into force on 12 June 1994.
8.  On 9 April 1997 the Bihać Municipal Court issued a writ of execution (rješenje o izvršenju). The execution proceedings were effectively stayed between 12 January 1998 and 12 September 2001.
9.  Meanwhile, on 28 November 1997, the judgment debt became a public debt pursuant to the Settlement of Claims Against the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina Act 1997.
10.  On 6 April 2005 the Human Rights Commission within the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Human Rights Commission”) found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention arising from a failure to enforce the judgment of 3 December 1993. It ordered the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina to ensure full enforcement of the judgment in issue within two months, to pay the equivalent of 255 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage within three months and to pay default interest after the expiry of the above time-limits at the annual rate of 10%.
11.  On 28 October 2005 the applicants received the compensation awarded by the Human Rights Commission.
12.  The judgment of 3 December 1993 was fully enforced on 5 June 2007 (the applicants were paid the principal debt, default interest and legal costs in the amounts specified in the judgment).
4.  The applicants are brothers, who were born in 1931 and 1925 respectively and live in Bucharest and Aachen (Germany) respectively.
5.  In 1932 the applicants’ parents bought a 596 sq. m plot of land with a one-storey building on it. In 1936 they built a three-storey building, linked to the existing one. The property is situated in Constanţa, at the crossroad of two streets, Dacia no. 1 and Răscoala din 1907 no. 38.
6.  In 1967 the property of the applicants’ parents was seized by the State under Decrees nos. 218/1960 and 712/1966.
7.  In 1974 two of the then tenants bought two of the flats.
8.  On 30 September and 18 October 1976 respectively, the Constanţa Court of First Instance declared the two sales null and void on the ground that they had ignored the legal provisions. However, on 9 February 1978 and 24 November 1992 respectively the two sales were deemed valid by court decisions.
9.  On 10 April 1996 the first applicant brought an action for the recovery of possession of immovable property, requesting the court to declare the nationalisation of her property unlawful and to order its return to her. The second applicant and the former tenants intervened in the proceedings. The former tenants claimed to be the owners of the two flats bought in 1974 and sought a declaration that they had acquired a right of property through acquisitive prescription, being in good faith.
10.  On 23 July 2001 the applicants lodged an application with the administrative authorities for restitution in kind of the property under Law no. 10/2001 governing immovable property wrongfully seized by the State. So far they have not received any answer.
11.  On 15 October 2002 the Supreme Court of Justice, in the operative part of a final decision, allowed in part the applicants’ action for recovery of possession, excepting the two flats bought by the former tenants, who were considered as being their owners. In the reasoning of the judgment the court stated that the seizure had been unlawful, that the State had no title to property since the two decrees had been contrary to the Constitutions of 1952 and 1965 respectively, and that the entire property belonged to the applicants’ parents, the applicants being their sole heirs. However, it considered that the former tenants, although buying from a non-owner, the State, had been in good faith and had acquired a right of property through acquisitive prescription. It would have been exaggerated and manifestly unfair to have requested the former tenants to question the validity of the State’s title at that moment.
4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in the city of Mykolaiv, Ukraine.
5.  The applicant is a former employer of the open joint-stock company “Avtobaza” (“the company”) situated in the town of Ochakiv, the Mykolaiv region. The State have not held any share in the company since February 1999.
6.  On 13 May 1998 the Ochakiv Court ordered the company to pay the applicant UAH 3.176[1] in salary arrears. This judgment was enforced in full on an unspecified date in 2002.
7.  While the enforcement proceedings in respect of the above judgment were still pending, the applicant instituted proceedings in the Ochakiv Court against the Ochakiv Bailiffs’ Service and the company claiming compensation for pecuniary damage caused to him due to the non-enforcement of the judgment of 13 May 1998 in due time.
8.  On 3 April 2001 the court ordered that the company pay the applicant UAH 2.283[2] in compensation for inflation losses. By the same judgment, the court rejected the applicant’s claims against the Bailiffs’ Service as unsubstantiated. This judgment became final and the enforcement writ was transferred to the Bailiffs’ Service for enforcement.
9.  On 8 May 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the company had been declared bankrupt by the decision of the Mykolayiv Regional Commercial Court of 17 December 2002.
10.  The judgment of 3 April 2001 remains unenforced.
11.  In September 2001, while the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 3 April 2001 were still pending, the applicant instituted proceedings in the Ochakiv Court against the Ochakiv Bailiffs’ Service seeking compensation for the latter’s failure to act.
12.  On 26 November 2002 the court found in part for the applicant and ordered the Bailiffs’ Service to pay him UAH 825[3] in compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused as result of the non-enforcement of the judgment of 3 April 2001.
13.  On 12 May 2003 the Ochakiv Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings in view of their own lack of funds.
14.  The judgment of 26 November 2002 remains unenforced.
5.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in the town of Novaya Kakhovka, the Kherson Region, Ukraine.
6.  On 4 November 2003[1] the Nova Kakhovka Court ordered the joint stock company “Pivdenelektronmash” (“the company”), in which the State holds 75 % of the shares, to pay the applicant 37,237.36[2] Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) in salary arrears owed to her husband who died in October 2002.
7.  There were bankruptcy proceedings pending against the company at that time.
8.  On 2 December 2003 the Nova Kakhovka Bailiffs’ Office (“the Bailiffs”) instituted enforcement proceedings. The writ of execution was joined to other enforcement proceedings pending against the company.
9.  Following the ruling of the Commercial Court of the Kherson Region of 27 February 2004, the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 4 November 2003 were suspended.
10.  On 1 November 2004 the Nova Kakhovka Court rejected the applicant’s complaint against the alleged inactivity of the Bailiffs. This decision was upheld on 10 March 2005 by the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal.
11.  On 1 July 2005 the enforcement proceedings were resumed.
12.  On 7 May 2006 the company paid the applicant UAH 8,938[3].
13.  By its judgment of 2 June 2006 the Nova Kakhovka Court ordered that the company pay the applicant UAH 7,812[4] in compensation for failure to pay in time the award under the judgment of 4 November 2003.
14.  On 13 June 2006 the Bailiffs instituted the enforcement proceedings in respect of this judgment.
15.  According to the applicant, the Bailiffs terminated the enforcement proceedings concerning the judgment of 4 November 2003 on the ground of false information provided by the company about the settlement of the debt. The applicant requested the Nova Kakhovka Court to provide her with a new writ of execution, which she submitted to the Bailiffs on 18 July 2006.
16.  On 20 July 2006 the Bailiffs instituted new enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 4 November 2003.
17.  The judgments of 4 November 2003 and 2 June 2006 remain unenforced due to the company’s difficult financial situation.